The maneuvers they performed with jetliners, with only minimal simulator training would be impossible. They’d be difficult by fully trained pilots, yet alone these supposed flyers.

That is patently absurd. The easiest thing to do with a plane is keep it in the air. Turning it and dropping down to hit the towers is not that much harder. Landing without crashing, now that’s a challenge. They had many hours in small aircraft and time in jet simulators.

The maneuvers they performed with jetliners, with only minimal simulator training would be impossible. They’d be difficult by fully trained pilots, yet alone these supposed flyers.

That is patently absurd. The easiest thing to do with a plane is keep it in the air. Turning it and dropping down to hit the towers is not that much harder. Landing without crashing, now that’s a challenge. They had many hours in small aircraft and time in jet simulators.

Ya that was a pretty silly video. The fact of the matter is, as attested to by professional jetliner pilots, that kind of precision flying of a jetliner, NOT a piper cub, is extremely difficult. Here’s another video from a seasoned airline pilot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMJUJO794f8

I can hear all the truth deniers already…he was paid, he stands to get money, etc. Whatever, at this point you either trust the governments explanation (you know, that government that has installed dictators, wires taps but denies it, and on and on) or you’re skeptical.

The fact of the matter is, as attested to by professional jetliner pilots, that kind of precision flying of a jetliner, NOT a piper cub, is extremely difficult. Here’s another video from a seasoned airline pilot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMJUJO794f8

I can hear all the truth deniers already…he was paid, he stands to get money, etc. Whatever, at this point you either trust the governments explanation (you know, that government that has installed dictators, wires taps but denies it, and on and on) or you’re skeptical.

You’re kidding right. It doesn’t take a half an hour to say, that is a difficult turn. I’m not listening to that. Really, I don’t get the problem here. Everyone who is at the very beginning of learning to fly has to turn a plane, line it up with a runway and descend. To hit the side of a tall building, you don’t have to be precise about your altitude. You have a few hundred feet to play with.

And it’s been eight years since we’ve had a solid and scientifically sound explanation for everything that happened. Such is the power of science and empirical investigation.

Clearly untrue: demonstrated, for example, by NIST saying there were shear studs on WTC 7’s girders and beams in its interim report in 2004—but asserting that there were no shear studs installed on the girders in 2008, in order to support its hypothesis that girder failure occurred.

One might also ask what value there is to empirical investigation if there is no forensic application, given that NIST examined precisely zero physical evidence from the building while indulging in computer-based speculation that no-one can check.

It could be built one or more levels at a time so the complete stack would be 13 ft 9 inches. Some printers have a precision of less than 1/1000th of an inch so hollow box columns could be made with walls of varying thickness.

But columns could be tested for strength to be as weak as possible relative the the weight and the structure could be weighted to have the same distribution as the WTC. IF WE EVER GOT THE DATA. It could then be tested for complete collapse and the 3D diagrams could be sent all over the world and the tests repeated by anyone with the equipment to produce the components.

So if it won’t collapse even if designed to be as weak as possible then what was the story on 9/11?

But that would present a problem for all of the people who have said collapse was possible for 12 years.

Experimentation is so unscientific.

[16,733]
psik

Signature

Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History

psikey still doesn’t understand the concept that even if you created a small model of WTC as an absolutely perfect replica (dimensions, mass, material makeup, etc), it wouldn’t behave the same way, because mass and dimensions do not scale at the same rate.

Some time ago I wrote Python program that computes the collapse time of 109 masses floating above one another 12 feet apart by dropping the top 14 onto the rest to be slowed down only by the Conservation of Momentum.

In the real world physical supports would be required to hold the masses 12 feet apart.

But destroying supports from above would require energy. But that would mean taking kinetic energy from the falling mass. That would slow it down. That would means INCREASING THE COLLAPSE TIME.

So suppose we subtracted energy from the falling mass 1% at a time per collision and recompute the collapse time. Increase the percentage again and again and see how high would the percentage have to get until the collapse time was greater than the actual event? But if the percentage was still ridiculously low then how could it be explained?

Since the momentum only collapse time was about the same as the collapse time of the main mass of the north tower that should have made it obvious to everyone that something bizarre had to have occurred. 0% energy lost breaking/crushing supports gives 12.88 seconds. That is with masses held up by “magic”. But a 1% loss of energy raises the collapse time to 13.56 seconds. Then another percent gives 14.22 seconds. At 22% the time is 24.97 seconds. But 25 seconds is the time including what it took for “The Spire” to come down. That was just the damaged remains of the core. But this means all of the building supports had to absorb less than 22% of the Kinetic Energy, which had to come from the Potential Energy of the building. 75% would double the total collapse time.

That program reduces the kinetic energy right after each collision. Would computing it before the collision matter significantly.

Curious how our experts can’t get this Potential Energy data reasonably correct in 12 years.

So how did breaking the supports take so little energy? Not that this is an actual calculation of the energy it would take to break them. Only the percentage required to slow things down and not get out of range of the time of what was recorded. So how could what was recorded happen?

Poor psikey doesn’t understand how falling masses are gaining their kinetic energy from their potential energy under the force of gravity. This is why things accelerate towards a mass when you put them within a gravity field.

He seems to think a falling object only loses energy when its falling and encountering resisting forces. Apparently this is why skydivers eventually float to stop when jumping out of airplanes, because they’re encountering an enormous amount of resistant force (air pressure) the entire way down. In fact that resistance increases significantly as you drop down into the denser atmosphere further and further down.

Psikey doesn’t seem to understand the slightest thing about physics, he just failed to understand how simple gravity works. Typical 9/11 truther!

It seems pretty obvious after 41 pages that the answer to the OP from the forum here is “no”.

I note that the NIST report is debunked in its own terms, even though it was plainly pseudoscience from the start, because the omission of stiffener plates from its analysis invalidates the column 79 progressive collapse hypothesis.

It seems pretty obvious after 41 pages that the answer to the OP from the forum here is “no”.

I note that the NIST report is debunked in its own terms, even though it was plainly pseudoscience from the start, because the omission of stiffener plates from its analysis invalidates the column 79 progressive collapse hypothesis.

Can I consider my witnessing 2 planes crashing into the buildings on TV as evidence?
If I can consider that as evidence then I support the Official Facts.